Refdesk.com has been around a long time. If you have never seen it or used it, please give me the honor of making the introductions.

Go the home page: http://www.refdesk.com. There is a lot to absorb. Take your time. Scroll down the page, and check it out.

Bothered by the ads popping up on the page? There is an easy fix. Support Refdesk. Contribute $25, and Refdesk is add free for a year. No, you don’t have to contribute $25. You don’t have to contribute at all. But, if you want to use Refdesk frequently, I encourage you to contribute something.

If you are like me, you do not want to keep scrolling to find what you want to see – you simply want to get there. Go to the top of the website, and look to the right. You will see three search tools: (1) Check Email; (2) Quick Links; and (3) Reference Desk. Right away, you can see that this has potential as home page.

I want to look up grammar and punctuation rules. Go to Reference Desk, click the down arrow, and choose “Grammar/Style.” That’s a nice assortment of writing guides, but not exactly what I want. I’m looking for The Elements of Style. Click on More at the bottom of the page. There it is.

You have seen one small example of the information this site can give you. I leave it to you to seek out the rest. -CCE

Much has been written about the poor state of lawyers’ writing, but less about their punctuation. For years, grammarians and writing gurus have bemoaned misuses of quotation marks—and these misuses are legion. But for lawyers, quotation-mark abuse may not be so bad. And using scare quotes might be the beginning of better legal writing. That’s because lawyers put scare quotes on words, terms, and phrases they would not use otherwise. And if scare quotes make lawyers comfortable enough to start using more plain language, their use might be a good thing.

Prior to publication of the new Bluebook, law journals, lawyers, and judges were in pretty close agreement on how to cite a Restatement section (e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. j (1965) [as cited in the May 2015 issue of the Harvard Law Review] or Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 349, cmt. a (1981) [as cited in an Aug. 2015 decision of the Seventh Circuit]). Journals put the titles in large and small caps. Lawyers and judges didn’t. Furthermore, consistent with their treatment of other static material, many lawyers and judges left off the date element. In an era in which briefs are held to a maximum word count, why include the redundant ‘(1965)’ or ‘(1981)’? The Bluebook reflected that consensus. Its prescribed formats for citations to provisions in Uniform Codes, Model Acts, the federal sentencing guidelines, and the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct were consistent with it. See The Bluebook R. 12.9.5 (19th ed. 2010).

Personally, I’m waiting for Peter Martin at Cornell to update his excellent Bluebook® Cheat Sheet. But, if you want to know all things Bluebook®, I can recommend this website –https://www.legalbluebook.com/.

This website also provides a way to buy a hard copy, which is my preference when I use it regularly. If you use The Bluebook® at all, I recommend bookmarking and browsing here the entire website and its features. Yearly subscriptions are a reasonable rate.

The good news for Bluebook® users is that, at the beginning of every new edition, there is a list of the differences between this version and the last one. Here is a preview of what is new in the 20th Edition: https://www.legalbluebook.com/Public/Updates.aspx.

Yes, you will wonder about why some of the changes were made. That is a given. But isn’t it nice to have all the changes summarized and listed for you right up front. No guessing and no reason to search the entire book to find the updates. -CCE

One of my favorite quotations! Mr. Luvera hit the nail on the head, not only for trial presentations, but for any type of writing regardless of your profession. Some people think that their writing should be complex, with lots of Latin, jargon, and legalese. Technical writers often use complicated terms and words understood (barely) by people who work in their industry, but no one else.

Most readers skim or skip the long, single-space block quotations often found in legal briefs. Wouldn’t you? Imagine having to slog through poorly written briefs day after day? Or imagine that you are a juror who must decipher poorly written jury instructions. If what you say is that important, why risk losing the reader even for a moment?

Just like Murphy’s Law, in writing, whatever can be misunderstood, will be. What is the point of writing anything if you are not easily understood? No, you are not “dumbing down” your writing or treating the reader like a child. You are communicating and facilitating your goal — to be understood. -CCE

If you are not familiar with Ms. Pacifici, I encourage you to check out her blog. She is an extraordinary researcher. These materials are interesting enough on their own, but you will see that the links take you to the FOIA Resources at The National Security Archive. The Government Attic Blog is also worth a good, long look. -CCE

‘National Security Counselors law firm has obtained a copy of the CIA Directorate of Intelligence Style Manual, Eighth Edition, 2011. It is entitled Style Manual & Writers Guide for Intelligence Publications. The CIA Guide is not alone. Each of the members of the Intelligence Community ­IC ­ have one or more Style Manuals to conform the reports and documents of that agency to a consistent writing style and usage. This is highly important to achieving clear and unambiguous communications of such matters.

Not necessarily for legal writers, but downright handy nonetheless. The folks who put this together are kind enough to share this valuable resource, and welcome your ideas and suggestions. At the bottom of the post’s page, you will find contact information for contributions. Please give back if you can as thanks for this thoughtful gift. -CCE

Legal writers do this more than they realize, sometimes out of haste and short deadlines. These are common — and fixable — bad writing mistakes. -CCE

In litigation, you have to persuade judges that your client’s position is correct, but don’t forget about the gatekeepers. Your motions and briefs will probably be reviewed by a law clerk before it reaches the judge’s desk. Clerks for federal judges say they have reviewed many motions and briefs where it appeared that the attorneys didn’t care whether their clients prevailed.

I didn’t realize that attorneys would prefer to lose, not win, their case. But if your goal is losing, this article is for you. Be sure to incorporate these ideas from my law clerk friends into your motions and briefs — if you want to lose your case. . . .

This is the essence of writing a persuasive and winning brief. Each section is important. Ignore the guidance here at your peril.

The icing on the cake is the advice from the Hon. Patricia M. Wald, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, taken from her article, “19 Tips from 19 Years on the Appellate Bench,” The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Winter 1999). She is right – this is your opportunity to tell your client’s story. Short and to the point is always more persuasive than long-winded recitations of fact and case law.

If you have any interest in the fine points of legal citation and legal writing, this is the blog for you. Citation master, Peter Martin, who holds an endowed chair named for the late Jane M.G. Foster Professor of Law Emeritus at Cornell, has created a forum to discuss and elaborate on citations as they are used by counsel and the court.

This is a “must bookmark” for anyone interested in legal writing, cite-checking, or how to cite properly. Please click on “About – Scope and Purpose” to read more about the authors’ intent for this blog. -CCE

To emphasize the point, here is a brief compilation of Courts that use or require .pdf hyperlinks. Please note that this is not a complete list. If you know of other courts that require or allow .pdf hyperlinks in briefs, please forward that information to me, and I will post it. As a general caveat, always check your Court’s rules when preparing any brief to be filed with the Court, and follow them concisely.

Also, please note that the U.S. Supreme Court uses hyperlinks to citations in its opinions. But, it has encountered something called “link rot,” which causes hyperlinks to deteriorate with time. That issue has been discussed in here at: https://researchingparalegal.com/2013/10/22/a-plan-to-stop-link-rot-forever-perma-cc/. You can easily subscribe to Perma.cc. The only problem I have encountered that it is still in beta stage and is not 100% reliable. If you encounter problems, the people who do the trouble-shooting respond quickly.-CCE

Page after page of lengthy quotations are the sign of a lazy writer. Use quotes to add credibility to your argument, but not to make your argument for you. When readers are faced with a lengthy quote, a reader often skims over it than reading it in its entirety.

A good rule of thumb is to quote only when the court says it better than you can. Even then, quote sparingly. Use spot citations for any quote, holding, or reasoning by the court in your document. -CCE